[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 61 (Monday, April 27, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2420-S2427]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROTECTING VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS AND EMERGENCY RESPONDERS ACT
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
resume consideration of H.R. 1191 for debate only, which the clerk will
report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (H.R. 1191) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to ensure that emergency services volunteers are not
taken into account as employees under the shared
responsibility requirements contained in the Patient
Protection and Affordable Care Act.
Pending:
Corker/Cardin amendment No. 1140, in the nature of a
substitute.
Mr. REID. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Religious Freedom
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, Congress unanimously passed the
International Religious Freedom Act in 1989 with a 98-to-0 vote in this
body for that legislation, including 19 Senators still serving today--
11 Republicans and 8 Democrats. We asserted that religious freedom
``undergirds the very origin and existence of the United States.'' Yet,
religious freedom today is under attack across the country.
Political activists are attacking religious freedom as the enemy of
equality, claiming that laws protecting religious freedom are designed
to enshrine discrimination in State law. This effort is misinformed, it
is misguided, and it is misleading. It will serve only to harm
religious freedom and to demonize religious people, many of whom would
be allies in the effort to promote equality.
The attack on religious freedom misunderstands the history and
importance of religious freedom in America. That story began more than
400 years ago, as one religious community after another came to these
shores so they could freely live their faith. As far back as December
1657, residents of the community known today as Flushing, NY, signed a
petition called the Flushing Remonstrance. This petition protested a
ban on certain religious practices that prevented the Quakers from
worshipping. The petition signers stated that they would let everyone
decide for themselves how to worship.
One hundred twenty years later, the original States and the Federal
Government specifically protected religious freedom in their
Constitutions. Indeed, the phrase America's Founders chose for the
first individual right listed in the First Amendment--the free exercise
of religion--is very important. The free exercise clause is not limited
to particular exercises of religion or to the exercise of religion by
certain parties but instead protects the free exercise of religion
itself. James Madison wrote in 1758 that exercising religion according
to conviction and conscience is an inalienable right. Two hundred years
later, Supreme Court Justice Arthur Goldberg declared that ``to the
Founding Fathers, freedom of religion was regarded to be preeminent
among fundamental rights.''
This belief in the special importance and preeminent status of
religious freedom did not end with America's founding generation. In
his famous 1941 State of the Union Address, President Franklin D.
Roosevelt asserted that ``the right of every person to worship God in
his own way'' is an essential human freedom. Just 4 years later, after
the end of World War II, the United States signed the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights. This crucial document includes religious
freedom as one of the inalienable rights universal to all members of
the human family.
Our last several Presidents have issued annual proclamations
declaring January 16 Religious Freedom Day. This date marks the
anniversary of the Virginia General Assembly's adoption of the Virginia
Statute for Religious Freedom. In this year's proclamation, President
Obama said that religious freedom is a fundamental liberty and defined
religious freedom as the right of every person to live and practice
their faith how they choose. In previous years, President Obama has
called religious freedom a universal and natural human right and an
essential part of human dignity. President George W. Bush similarly
declared that no human freedom is more fundamental than the right to
freely practice one's religious beliefs. President Clinton said that
religious freedom is a fundamental human right, a core value
[[Page S2421]]
of our democracy, and essential to our dignity as human beings.
I want my colleagues to appreciate how robust religious freedom has
historically been in our country. Article 18 of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights states that religious freedom includes
``freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or
private, to manifest . . . religion or belief in teaching, practice,
worship and observance.''
In America, religious freedom has always included freedom in both
belief and behavior, in private and in public, individually and
collectively. Today's attacks on religious freedom know none of this.
Instead, they dismiss religious freedom as a sham, as little more than
an excuse for mean-spirited people who want to discriminate. Today's
opponents of religious freedom laws either do not know or do not care
that religious freedom is an integral part of the origin, the identity,
and the very life of our Nation.
They are also clearly misinformed about how, even in America, the
reality of religious freedom has not always matched the promise of
religious freedom. The truth is that government does many things that
compromise, burden, and even prohibit the exercise of religion. The
Flushing Remonstrance was necessary because community leaders allowed
religious freedom for some but not for others. Government has even
sometimes passed laws explicitly designed to limit or stamp out
particular religious practices or religious communities.
More often, government undermines and restricts the exercise of
religion through indirect impact. General laws that on their face do
not explicitly target religion can nonetheless have a profound impact
when applied to particular religious practices. Zoning ordinances may
restrict where churches can meet, whether they may expand their meeting
place, and what services they may offer. Religious institutions may be
forced to hire individuals who do not share their faith. Regulations
may prohibit individuals from wearing items required by their faith or
require employees to work on their Sabbath.
Government at all levels--Federal, State, and local--is becoming ever
more intrusive in virtually every facet of life. Unless government is
mindful of its impact on religious practices, government will become
increasingly intrusive in matters of religion as well.
The attack on religious freedom is also misinformed about how
important religious liberty laws are to protecting the exercise of
religion.
Prior to 1990, for more than a century the Supreme Court's
interpretation of the free exercise clause had gradually moved toward
broader application and stronger protection. In the 19th century, for
example, the Court said that the First Amendment protected religious
belief but not religious conduct, even though the First Amendment makes
no such distinction. The Court subsequently adopted a more unified view
of religious practice and set a standard that made it difficult for
government to interfere with either belief or conduct.
In 1981, the Supreme Court made clear that government ``may justify
an inroad on religious liberty by showing it is the least restrictive
means of achieving some compelling state interest.'' This standard was
important for two reasons. First, it reflected the general importance
of religious freedom in our country. Second, it applied to both
religious conduct and religious belief and protected against both
direct and indirect government burdens and restrictions.
In a 1990 case entitled ``Employment Division v. Smith,'' the Supreme
Court regrettably reversed course. Under the Court's new interpretation
of the First Amendment, as set forth in Smith, the free exercise clause
applies only when government directly burdens religion with a law
targeted at religious practice. The clause provides no protection at
all when government burdens religion indirectly through a generally
applicable law or regulation. Before the Smith decision, it had been
difficult but not impossible for government to interfere with the
exercise of religion. Government had to show that a law or regulation
burdening religion furthered a compelling State interest and was the
least restrictive means of achieving that interest. I might add, under
the Court's new Smith standard, however, government can make religious
practice not only difficult but even impossible. Provided government
does not specifically target religion for disfavor, it can pass all
sorts of laws that interfere with worship, practice, or belief.
It would be hard to overstate the impact of Smith. In 1992, the
Congressional Research Service found that as a result of Smith, ``free
exercise claims have become markedly unsuccessful.'' Remember that the
government has its biggest impact on religion not through direct
suppression but, rather, by indirect restriction--by disregarding
religious practice as something needing special attention. Under Smith,
government can do exactly what the First Amendment forbids and prohibit
the free exercise of religion so long as it does so through generally
applicable laws rather than laws targeted at specific groups.
Congress responded to Smith by enacting the Religious Freedom
Restoration Act, or RFRA. I had a lot to do with that. RFRA's standard
mirrored what the Supreme Court had only a few years earlier said the
First Amendment required--namely, that government may impose a
substantial burden on the exercise of religion only if it is the least
restrictive means of achieving a compelling government purpose.
RFRA does not automatically protect any specific exercise of
religion, nor does it automatically prohibit any specific government
action that burdens religion. RFRA sets a standard that requires
balancing government action against religious freedom and puts a thumb
on the scale in favor of religious freedom. RFRA leaves it to the
courts, in individual cases based on real facts, to determine whether a
particular exercise of religion or a particular governmental action is
more important.
In 1997, the Supreme Court held in City of Boerne v. Flores that RFRA
applies only to the Federal Government. This meant that once again
religious practice was vulnerable to virtually any restriction,
regulation, or prohibition by State or local government. States
responded to the Flores decision just as Congress had responded to the
Smith decision: They immediately began enacting State religious
restoration acts that set the same standard for State and local
governments that the Federal statute still imposes on the Federal
Government, the Federal statute called the Religious Freedom
Restoration Act. These State RFRAs differ in a few minor ways from the
Federal RFRA but are identical to the Federal RFRA in the core
provision that really matters--the standard that government must
satisfy in order to burden religious exercise. Under all of these
statutes, government action that burdens religion must be the least
restrictive means of achieving a compelling government purpose.
I want my colleagues to understand two things about these religious
freedom laws: First, States are enacting State-level Religious Freedom
Restoration Acts for the same reason Congress did. Without such laws,
every exercise of religion is vulnerable to restriction or even
prohibition by government. Second, State versions of RFRA operate the
same way the Federal statute does. They set a standard and then leave
that standard for courts to apply in individual cases with real facts.
In every case, the party claiming RFRA protection must show that
government action imposes a substantial burden on his or her exercise
of religion, and the government must show that this burden is the least
restrictive means of furthering a compelling government interest.
Without this protection, government action will trump religious
practice in almost every case. With this protection, government action
will have to accommodate religious practice in at least some cases.
Those attacking religious freedom today are completely misinformed
about why these laws are passed and how they work to protect religious
freedom. They want people to believe that RFRA was passed to provide
cover for discrimination masquerading as religious practice and to
therefore oppose efforts to pass or strengthen State-level RFRAs. That
account is complete fiction. RFRA was passed so that the fundamental
inalienable right to practice religion can have at least some
protection.
What would happen if we treated the free speech clause of the First
Amendment the way these activists treat the
[[Page S2422]]
free exercise clause of the First Amendment? No one would be protected
against government restrictions on speech because a few people might
say things the rest of us don't like.
In addition to being misinformed about religious freedom in America
and how the Religious Freedom Restoration Act protects it, the attack
on religious freedom today is misguided because discrimination--not
religious freedom--is the real problem.
I am sure my colleagues have heard the sound bite that RFRA legalizes
discrimination. NBC News, for example, reported last year that the
Arizona RFRA ``would have permitted businesses in the state to deny
service to gays and lesbians for religious beliefs.''
I explained how RFRA works to make crystal clear that this claim is
false. Neither the Federal Government nor any State RFRA legalizes,
permits or prohibits anything. RFRA sets a standard that government
must meet when its actions burden the exercise of religion. Courts
apply that standard in individual cases based on real facts to decide
whether the religious practice or the government action is more
important.
I need to make one more important distinction before looking at
another reason why this claim is false. Those attacking religious
freedom today use a very broad brush when raising the specter that
businesses will ``deny service.'' They apparently want us to believe
that businesses everywhere are intent on turning away customers, on not
doing business with certain people. That not only makes no sense, but
it just plain is not true.
Instead, the controversy exists only with regard to a few businesses
that supply particular goods or services for weddings. A small number
of business owners apparently feel that, while they gladly serve the
general public and provide goods and services to all types of
customers, providing certain specific goods or services for a same-sex
wedding would amount to supporting or endorsing something inconsistent
with their religious beliefs. Think what you want about those business
owners, I want my colleagues to know that RFRA does not protect their
decision to refuse service today.
Here is what has to happen for a case pitting RFRA against a claim
discrimination to exist. The particular State where the business is
located must have a law prohibiting discrimination based on sexual
orientation and gender identity in places of public accommodation such
as businesses. The State must also have not only a Religious Freedom
Restoration Act but one that applies between private parties. The
business would have to violate the antidiscrimination law and, if the
business were sued, argue that the antidiscrimination law imposed a
substantial burden on the exercise of religion. Only then would a judge
decide whether--in that case based on its specific facts--the
antidiscrimination law or the business owner's religious beliefs were
more important.
Do you see why the claim that RFRA, by itself, legalizes
discrimination is absolutely, completely false? Not only does RFRA not
legalize anything, the situation in which RFRA would even be involved
does not exist anywhere in America today. Right now, according to the
Human Rights Campaign, 17 States have the necessary antidiscrimination
law, and only 4 of those 17 have a Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
And of those four, none has a RFRA that applies to lawsuits between
private parties. In other words, the number of States today in which a
business could look to RFRA to justify discrimination is precisely
zero.
Moreover, the current controversy, misinformed and misguided as it
is, has no doubt diminished the likelihood that States with
antidiscrimination laws will now enact religious freedom laws.
Discrimination, not religious freedom, is the real problem. Despite
what the activists want everyone to believe, Americans practice
religion every day in innumerable ways that have nothing whatsoever to
do with anyone's sexual orientation or gender identity. In the very few
situations in which religious freedom and discrimination might overlap,
RFRA would actually be the way to sort out the conflict--the mechanism
to balance these competing interests. Even though the exercise of
religion is a fundamental and inalienable right, it is not absolute.
Many courts have found that government has a compelling interest in
prohibiting discrimination.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that an excellent analysis of
this point by David Rivkin and Professor Elizabeth Price Foley that
appeared in the Wall Street Journal be printed in the Record following
my remarks.
Here is the bottom line. The situation that activists want everyone
to believe is sweeping the country cannot exist anywhere in America
today. If the day ever comes when that situation does arise, many
applying RFRA would place freedom from discrimination over freedom of
religion by a wide margin.
The attack on religious freedom today is not only misinformed about
religion freedom in America and how laws such as RFRA protect that
freedom, it is not only misguided in presenting religious freedom
rather than discrimination as the real problem and RFRA as the culprit,
but it is also misleading in broadly painting religious people as mean-
spirited bigots. That is wrong. That is just plain wrong.
It is also unfortunate because many Americans believe in both
equality and religious freedom and could be allies in seeking to
maximize both. I voted for the Employment Non-Discrimination Act last
Congress after working with Senators on both sides of the aisle to
strengthen its provisions protecting religious freedom. Earlier this
year, the Utah State Legislature passed and Governor Gary Herbert
signed a law prohibiting discrimination in employment and housing while
also protecting religious freedom.
How did we go from religious freedom being a fundamental and
inalienable right to religious freedom laws being attacked as un-
American? How did we go from religious freedom being an essential human
right that undergirds our Nation's very existence to activists calling
laws that protect religious freedom dangerous and even contemptuous?
Those attacking laws that protect religious freedom would deny any
legal protections for anyone to exercise religion in any way today
because a few people might someday attempt to exercise their religion
in a way that the courts would likely reject. This is a misinformed,
misguided, and misleading campaign that will only damage religious
freedom and demonize many who would work toward maximizing both
equality and freedom for all Americans.
I was the prime sponsor in the Senate of the Religious Freedom
Restoration Act. I went to Senator Kennedy. He was a friend, and we
joined on many pieces of legislation that were in the best interests of
everybody in America. At first, he said: I am not joining on that bill.
Then I kept talking to him about it and how important it was. Finally,
he said: Yes, I am going to be a prime cosponsor on that bill. There
are many other prime cosponsors on that bill.
When that bill was signed on the South Lawn of the White House by
President Clinton, one of the most proud people on Earth on that
signing day happened to be Ted Kennedy, who knew that he had done
right, who knew that it was right to protect the Religious Freedom
Restoration Act. And I know it is right. That is one reason we fought
so hard for it, and it passed 97 to 3, if I recall it correctly--almost
unanimously--and unanimously in the House, as far as I know.
It is time for us to wake up and realize that religious freedom is
under attack in this country. It is under attack because people don't
understand the Constitution and people don't give a darn about the
Constitution. It is under attack because some groups think they can get
ahead by attacking religious freedom. Frankly, we ought to decry that,
and we all need to stand up for the Religious Freedom Restoration Act,
which upholds the first basic law of freedom in our Bill of Rights.
I yield the floor.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Wall Street Journal, Apr. 9, 2015]
Gay Rights, Religious Freedom and the Law
(By David B. Rivkin, Jr. and Elizabeth Price Foley)
There is a better route to protections than the battle in
Indiana.
Debates about the Indiana and Arkansas Religious Freedom
Restoration Acts, or
[[Page S2423]]
RFRAs, have regrettably pitted religious freedom against gay
rights. Critics claim the laws provide a license to
discriminate against lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender
(LGBT) individuals. But this criticism shouldn't be aimed at
the religious-freedom laws, which don't license
discrimination based on sexual orientation or anything else.
Those wanting to advance LGBT rights should focus on
enacting laws that bar discrimination. If there is a legal
``license'' to discriminate based on sexual orientation, it
is because few jurisdictions today provide protection against
such discrimination, or because the Constitution may immunize
such behavior in certain circumstances.
There is no federal law prohibiting private discrimination
based on sexual orientation. An executive order by President
Obama in 2014 bans such discrimination only for federal
workers and contractors. About 20 states and some
municipalities prohibit sexual-orientation discrimination in
workplaces and public accommodations. But the majority of
states still don't proscribe discrimination based on sexual
orientation, though discrimination based on race, gender,
ethnicity or national origin is banned.
The federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act was passed by
overwhelming bipartisan majorities and signed by President
Clinton in 1993. It represented a backlash against the
Supreme Court's 1990 decision in Employment Division v.
Smith. That decision held that the First Amendment's Free
Exercise Clause doesn't allow a religious exemption from laws
of general applicability--e.g., compulsory military service,
or prohibitions on drug use or animal cruelty--even if those
laws substantially burden religious exercise.
The federal RFRA law supplanted Smith, declaring that the
government could substantially burden religious exercise only
upon proving a ``compelling'' government interest for doing
so, and using only the ``least restrictive means'' of
furthering that interest. The Supreme Court, for example,
recently affirmed that the federal RFRA allowed Hobby Lobby,
a corporation closely held by religious owners, to refuse
participation in ObamaCare's contraceptive mandate, which
would have required the company to provide contraceptives
that may destroy an already-fertilized egg.
Because the federal RFRA applies only to federal actions,
20 states have passed their own religious-freedom laws
designed to provide the same protection against state-imposed
religious burdens. Another 11 states have implemented similar
protections through court decisions, based on state
constitutions.
So why have the latest religious-freedom laws been so
controversial? RFRA has become a political focal point for
pent-up anger over the paucity of legal protections against
LGBT discrimination. A specific controversy is over the
application of such laws to lawsuits between private parties.
Indiana's RFRA applies ``regardless of whether the state or
any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding.''
Federal RFRA doesn't clearly apply to such private disputes,
and federal courts are divided on whether it should. Arkansas
adopted language identical to the federal RFRA.
Applying religious-freedom laws to private disputes has
stirred fears that businesses will be able to defend
discriminatory behavior when LGBT individuals sue them. This
fear is greatly overblown. First, in states or localities
where there is no law banning sexual-orientation
discrimination, individuals and businesses are allowed to
discriminate, with or without a RFRA.
Second, where it's illegal to discriminate, a religious-
freedom defense requires proving that the antidiscrimination
statute ``substantially burdens'' religion.
Third, even if it does, courts routinely conclude that
preventing discrimination is a compelling interest, so the
LGBT plaintiff wins. RFRA thus doesn't change outcomes--only
laws banning sexual-orientation discrimination will.
Such laws won't eliminate all legal questions, however.
Those engaged in activities with a strong expressive
component--e.g., officiating at a wedding--may claim that
their First Amendment free-speech or association rights trump
antidiscrimination statutes. Some of these claims may prove
successful.
Moreover, state and federal law allows individuals to
refuse to provide certain services, such as abortions, based
on moral objections. Similar conscience-based protections may
eventually be demanded to accommodate moral objections to
participation in same-sex weddings by the likes of wedding
planners, photographers or bakers.
Americans have generally settled on the proper reach of
statutes prohibiting race, gender, ethnicity or national
origin-based discrimination by banning it in places of
employment or public accommodation. With this consensus in
mind, states and the federal government should consider
statutes prohibiting in similar circumstances sexual-
orientation discrimination.
Religious-freedom laws merely recognizing religious
liberty--a centerpiece of liberal society--would then be more
likely to become as universally accepted as they were in the
1990s.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sasse). The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, while the chairman of the Foreign
Relations Committee is here, I want him to know of my admiration for
him for trying to work together in a bipartisan way on an especially
thorny issue, this Iranian nuclear negotiation.
I read in today's paper that there are a lot of people who are trying
to torpedo the chairman's good work by basically bringing up all kinds
of poison pill amendments. If the chairman's conclusion is that he is
going to stick with the unanimous product that came out of this
committee, then I will be with him to keep that product clean so it can
go forward in the bipartisan way in which the chairman brought it to
the floor.
Takata Airbags
Mr. President, I am going to speak on a different subject today. It
is not as pleasant as the remarks I addressed to the chairman, and it
is on a completely different subject matter. It is about the defective
airbags manufactured by the Takata Corporation which are exploding in
people's faces and our collective effort to get them out of cars.
Instead of saving a life, these airbags--when they explode--either
maim or kill because of the defective construction. When the airbag
explodes, metal is coming out of the airbag like shrapnel and hitting
the occupant of the car--either the driver or the passenger.
Last November, we had a hearing in the commerce committee about these
rupturing airbags and the recalls. The number of vehicles recalled due
to the defective Takata airbags is going to be in the record books as
one of the largest in American history.
At that hearing, we saw that instead of preventing these deaths and
injuries, the opposite was happening. Interestingly, many of these
incidents are happening in vehicles exposed to persistent high heat and
humidity.
This Senator is from Florida, so it is, sadly, no surprise that
Florida has been the epicenter of these incidents. Earlier this year, I
came to the floor and reported that Takata had received unconfirmed
reports of 64 injuries and 5 deaths as a result of the exploding
airbags. At the time, these numbers from Takata were far greater than
what had been reported. Takata recently provided an update to the
committee, and I have new numbers.
According to the most recent data as of the end of January, Takata
had identified 40 more alleged incidents of rupturing airbags,
including 1 death. This brings the total number of alleged injuries
from 64 to 105 and the total number of alleged deaths to 6. As one
would expect, 17 of the 40 newly reported incidents provided by Takata
to our committee occurred in Florida. That brings the total number of
alleged incidents of exploding Takata airbags in Florida--just in
Florida--to 35, including 1 that caused a death.
Now, these injuries have been very serious. I am not talking about a
minor little nick. These injuries include facial fractures, blindness,
a broken sternum, and even quadriplegia. This Senator has visited with
one of his constituents--a big, strapping, healthy firefighter who will
no longer be a firefighter because he does not have sight in one of his
eyes. But even the new numbers I just gave do not paint the full
picture.
In fact, Reuters recently reported that another Takata airbag in
Florida ruptured just last month. The figures I reported earlier were
as of the end of last January. The victim who was injured last month
was in a 2003 Honda Civic. He had a 1\1/2\-inch piece of metal shrapnel
lodged into his neck after the airbag exploded. He was airlifted to the
hospital and the doctors were able to remove the shrapnel, but now he
has a big scar and a constant reminder that this incident could and
should have been prevented.
The death that occurred in Florida was due to shrapnel cutting the
jugular vein of the victim. When the police got to that accident,
instead of thinking it was a traffic accident, they looked at the
driver and thought a homicide had just occurred. It didn't occur to
them that shrapnel from an exploding airbag killed the driver.
Honda has informed us that they are sending their recall notices out
in both English and Spanish in order to more effectively reach
consumers. We appreciate what Takata has done in trying
[[Page S2424]]
to ramp up their production of replacement inflators. After that Honda
announcement, Honda also started an ad campaign in both English and
Spanish to remind owners to have their recalled airbag inflators
replaced, but obviously more still needs to be done.
We need to get to the root cause of the problem, that is what we need
to do, and we need to make sure we know why these defective airbag
inflators are failing. It may be the inflator or it may be the
propellant inside. We need to know. So, yes, we need more replacement
inflators, but we need to make sure they are actually safe replacement
inflators instead of potentially producing more defective inflators.
It is my understanding that Honda and others are taking steps to
ensure the safety of the replacement inflators. Well, that needs to
happen right now and be validated right away by an independent third
party. We need to make sure we are able to prevent defects like this in
the future.
I am going to stay on Takata. This Senator is going to stay on the
automakers. This Senator is going to stay on the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration to do exactly that. But for right now, I
urge anybody listening to me--if a defect is identified and you receive
a recall notice, get your car into the dealership for repair just as
quickly as you can. I also want folks to know that even if they have
not received a notice from Takata, they should go to the Web site,
safecars.gov and put in their car's VIN number to check and see if it
is subject to this or any other recall. That is imperative.
We are continuing to monitor this situation. We are going through
tens of thousands of pages of documents related to this defect. I will
keep the Senate updated.
I am pleased to report that the Senate is very close to approving S.
304, the Motor Vehicle Safety Whistleblower Act. This bipartisan
legislation, which Chairman Thune and I authored, would provide
financial incentives for whistleblowers in the automotive sector to
step forward if they see a manufacturer that is hiding or failing to
address a dangerous defect.
Certainly none of us needs to be reminded about the ignition switch
defect coverup at General Motors. They hid that defect for a decade,
and at least 87 people died because of it. This bill will hopefully
help prevent such coverups in the future.
This bill, S. 304, is a small but meaningful step toward automobile
safety. I hope my colleagues will urge their constituents to check on
those Takata airbags by going online, and I urge my colleagues as well
to clear this commonsense legislation. I certainly urge the House to do
so as well.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I yield the floor to my colleague, Senator
Coats.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
Wasteful Spending
Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I am just going to speak for a few minutes.
I am happy to defer to the Senator from Tennessee, but it shouldn't
take more than 2 or 3 minutes.
If the Senator is interested, this is this week's installment of my
``Waste of the Week'' speech. I come to the floor every week to point
out some spending of taxpayer dollars that perhaps we should absolutely
save. The cost to the taxpayers, as I will point out shortly, is in the
tens of billions, if not hundreds of billions, of dollars on programs
that have already been identified by government agencies as worthless,
fraudulent, unnecessary, and wasteful. While we have been unable--and
the Senator from Tennessee was a very pivotal part of this effort--to
come to an agreement on dealing with the larger issue of saving our
country from insolvency down the line, the very least we can do is to
point out those areas where we are spending money that absolutely does
not need to be spent and can be returned to the taxpayer. This week's
waste of the week is such that I can't keep from chuckling over how
this could happen, but it happens.
Everybody has heard about Ponce de Leon's search for the fountain of
youth. Obviously, that hasn't happened. A recently released Social
Security Inspector General's report found that 6.5 million individuals
over the age of 112 still have active Social Security numbers. How can
this happen? Well, it happened because in 1936 when the program
started, there were some people even from the mid-1800s who were
enrolled in Social Security, and they have never been taken off the
rolls. Now, obviously, these people are not all receiving checks, but
it opens the prospect for fraud and waste and people getting these
numbers, using them, and then receiving Social Security benefits
illegally.
In this inspector general's report, the Social Security
Administration is faulted for poorly managing data on ``number holders
who exceeded maximum reasonable life expectancies and were likely
deceased.''
Well, to put it mildly, if we have 6.5 million people in America who
are over the age of 112, my guess is that most of those people, if not
all of those people, are deceased--not likely deceased but are, in
fact, deceased.
Of those 6.5 million, the Social Security Administration inspector
general has determined that nearly 3,900 numbers were run through the
U.S. Government's E-Verify system for people more than a century old.
The E-Verify system is used when someone applies for a job. So that
means thousands of people over 100 years old are applying for these new
jobs. Obviously, someone is fraudulently using the system to report a
Social Security number for someone over 112 years of age who is in the
E-Verify system as applying for a job.
Auditors also discovered nearly 67,000 Social Security numbers in
recent years were used to report wages for people other than the
cardholders themselves. The workers reported about $3 billion in
earnings between 2006 and 2011, and then those earnings are used to
calculate their Social Security benefits.
Obviously, this is an issue that needs to be addressed. Auditors have
proposed that the Social Security Administration take action to correct
death records, but the Social Security Administration says it doesn't
want to divert resources away from efforts to improve payment accuracy.
I suggest the Social Security Administration might want to reassess
their assessment.
A gaping hole such as this undermines the confidence of the American
people in our government and in the way we run this business of
government in both the Social Security Administration and the Federal
Government at large.
Government agencies have estimated that the Social Security
Administration can reduce fraud and save at least $2 billion, likely
more, if this problem is corrected.
So as I do each week, we keep adding to our gauge of savings that now
are approaching very close to $50 billion, just over several weeks of
pointing out waste and fraud that has been documented by nonpolitical,
neutral Federal agencies. We keep adding more. We are approaching $50
billion. Our goal is $100 billion. I think we will go way past that if
I keep doing this every week.
In order to help correct the problem, I have introduced legislation,
along with Senator Carper and others, which will update the Social
Security system and ensure accuracy in Federal records, not just in
Social Security but in other agencies as well. I am just looking at one
agency. Wait until we get into some of the others.
The key provisions of our bill include allowing Federal agencies
access to the complete death database, because under current law, only
agencies that directly handle beneficiary payments may have access to
the complete database. The act allows all appropriate Federal agencies
to have access to the complete death data program for integrity
purposes as well as for other needs such as public safety and health.
It requires the use of death data to curb improper payments. Our
legislation establishes procedures to ensure more accurate death data.
As I have said before, by simply correcting the death records, the
Social Security Administration can reduce fraud and save at least $2
billion.
This is an area that is ripe for reform, and I urge my colleagues to
support this legislation and eliminate this waste, along with the other
$49 billion we have identified in just the last few weeks. We would be
doing the taxpayers a great service while making
[[Page S2425]]
our government the efficient, effective government it needs to be,
particularly in these times of lack of fiscal discipline.
I thank the Chair for the time. I also thank my colleague from
Tennessee for giving me this time.
Mr. President, I know we have important legislation on the floor this
week. This ``Waste of the Week'' speech is kind of tongue in cheek. We
are moving on to legislation that has historic consequences for the
future of America, for our own future, our children's future, and our
grandchildren's future.
The debate that will take place this week, led by Senator Corker from
Tennessee regarding the Iranian pursuit of nuclear weapons capability
is, in my time of service here in the Senate and in Congress, I think
the most consequential piece of legislative debate that I will ever
enter into. It will have enormous historical consequences, and we need
to get it right.
So I commend my colleague Senator Corker for his efforts in this
regard. He has moved the legislation through the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee with total bipartisan support, which is absolutely
key to the success of our efforts and necessary to prevent a
catastrophic activity taking place in Iran.
So I appreciate the time to speak, while not focusing all of my
attention and effort, as I hope all of my colleagues will, to this
extraordinary challenge that we have before us this week that will
determine the future for country and maybe the world.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I wish to thank the Senator for his
continual focus on fiscal issues. I know he spent a great deal of time
with a handful of folks at the White House two summers ago trying to
come up with a plan to really save our Nation.
I actually was just standing up a minute ago. I was about to suggest
the absence of a quorum until I saw the Senator from Indiana, so the
Senator can speak as long as he wishes on these waste issues. I thank
him for the kind of Senator he is and his continual efforts to save our
Nation from a national security standpoint and also our greatest
national security risk right now which is our inability to get our
fiscal house in order.
So I thank the Senator for this, and I look forward to the debate
over the next several days.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, this week we are going to, in my view, deal
with one of the most concerning, one of the most dangerous, one of the
most treacherous issues we will face--that I will face as a Member of
the U.S. Senate and, certainly, has been in the short period of time I
have had the honor of representing Kansans here in our Nation's
Capital. It is the question of Iran. It is the question of their
ability to acquire nuclear weapons.
On this question of Iran, American policymakers are approaching a
number of fateful decisions--in fact, a series of decisions that I
think have significant consequences. The implications of the choices
that will be made by our Nation and others will determine events today,
tomorrow, and well into the future, both regionally and globally. As I
indicated, the consequences will be felt for decades--generations,
perhaps--to come.
Such significant consequences require each step to be planted with
great care and consideration. I fear that the recent American march
into nuclear negotiations with Iran has been misguided, drawing our
country and the global community into a dangerous position.
American foreign policy with respect to Iran has long been centered
around the goal of preventing Iranian acquisition of nuclear weapon
capability. Today, this policy has weathered and has been allowed to be
weakened. It has become a position of delayed tolerance of a nuclear
Iran. This policy deterioration was made clear in recent weeks by
global affairs minds no less than former Secretaries of State George
Shultz and Henry Kissinger, who wrote: ``. . . negotiations that began
12 years ago as an international effort to prevent an Iranian
capability to develop a nuclear arsenal are ending with an agreement
that concedes that very capability. . . . ''
The administration's stated goal of securing a 1-year nuclear
development breakout period reveals a shift from firm disapproval to
acquiescence. The result, in my view, is a world that is much less
safe, a Middle East that is further prone to violent conflict, and an
international order trending toward nuclear armaments rather than
walking away from it.
Iranian Foreign Minister Zarif pointed this out last week in his
writing in the New York Times:
Nothing in international politics functions in a vacuum.
Security cannot be pursued at the expense of the insecurity
of others. No nation can achieve its interests without
considering the interests of others.
Nowhere are these dynamics more evident than in the wider
Persian Gulf region.
That is the Foreign Minister of Iran speaking. Mr. Zarif's words
apply to the pending nuclear question and the budding proposal to
exchange sanctions relief for a temporary suspension of Iranian nuclear
development. The decisions made by Iran and the P5+1 participants in
these nuclear negotiations are being considered and acted upon and
responded to by others in the region and others around the globe. As
Iran's neighboring states are looking to increase arms purchases for
use in the ongoing conflicts in their region, international concerns
about a nuclear-capable Iran are not merely passive policy critiques.
They are warnings worthy of our careful, determined consideration.
I would suggest and I will ask what we must ask: Does this pending
accord make the world safer or more dangerous? Does it bring Iran
closer to or further from nuclear capabilities? Can the world trust
Iran to uphold its commitments? Will the terms of the deal be
sufficiently verifiable to know if they do not?
Ultimately, we must ask if this deal would stabilize tensions in the
Middle East or accelerate them. These questions are greater than any
grappling things that go on between Congress and the President, between
Republicans and Democrats. This cannot and should not be a politically
partisan issue. It should be one of serious consideration about long-
term consequences to America, its allies, and our enemies.
The nuclear accord will have serious and lasting consequences for us
all. It is incumbent upon American leadership to guide these efforts in
the safest possible direction. In my view, our trajectory to date has
been uncertain. In response, Congress has insisted--and rightfully so--
that it oversee and participate in the process, especially in any
decision regarding the lifting of sanctions.
The President's efforts to ignore or sidestep the legislative
branch's constitutional role in foreign policy are troublesome. Many,
including me, have been asking why Congress lacks the ability to block
or more forcefully respond to a potential bad deal or to do more to
limit the President's ability to act unilaterally. Unfortunately, the
law resulting from the previously passed sanctions legislation allows
the President to waive sanctions under certain conditions--the
legislation that we passed.
Let me say that again. The legislation that we passed over a period
of time--and I am a Member of the banking committee involved in this
legislation--allowed a President--this or other Presidents--to waive
those sanctions under considerations of national security. What we
regrettably discovered is that Congress provided way too much
flexibility to a President too willing to ignore the concerns of the
legislature, too willing to find a reason to waive the sanctions.
But there remains reason of hope that Congress will play a
constructive and important part in this matter. Despite opposition from
the White House, bipartisan efforts led by Senate Foreign Relations
Committee Chairman Senator Corker have produced legislation providing
for a congressional review process. The bill had broad bipartisan
support, and perhaps that makes it impervious to President Obama's
initial threats of a veto.
[[Page S2426]]
Any increased role by Congress is welcomed, from my perspective. For
too long, Congress has deferred to Executive action when it comes to
foreign relations and foreign affairs--not just this Congress and this
President, but many Congresses and many Presidents. In my view,
Congress has failed its constitutional authority to oversee a
President's foreign policy efforts.
So this increased role for Congress is welcome. And for anyone who is
skeptical of the framework released by the State Department in early
April or curious about what the parameters might look like in a final
deal, Congress will have the ability to see, to know, and to let the
American people, and, in fact, the world know what these agreements
might contain.
After the presumed passage of the Iran Nuclear Review Act--the
legislation we have been considering this week--if it passes and the
case is that a deal is ultimately struck and an agreement is struck by
the June 30 deadline between the administration, the P5+1, and Iran,
Congress will have 30 days to review that agreement.
As we began late last week and early this week to consider this
legislation, the point in being here at this stage is to indicate that
while I wish there were more opportunities for congressional
involvement in the process, what the committee has presented to us
gives us the starting point, the beginning point, and the opportunity
to explore fully what the administration has been negotiating in
secret.
I have attended the meetings--the so-called classified briefings--and
it is hard to leave those meetings with an understanding or
appreciation or more knowledge of what is in the potential agreement
with Iran than before I walked in the door. What will transpire this
week on the Senate floor gives me and others the opportunity--and
ultimately the American people--to know a lot more.
As this process has been developed and as we implement it here on the
Senate floor, it is important that we use this time to carefully
examine the results of any nuclear negotiations and ask ourselves this
question: Is the world better off as a result of that agreement? Is
peace more assured, and does humanity have a better future?
We don't have the agreement in front of us yet, but what we do this
week sets the stage for that review, for that understanding, and for
the ability to reject, if necessary. What that agreement contains is
important. It is encouraging to me to see that the Senate--the
Congress, in fact--is stepping forward to play its rightful
constitutional role in foreign affairs.
I look forward to the discussion this week, but more importantly, I
look forward to the passage of legislation that allows us to have a
much greater say, much more significant knowledge, and a better
opportunity to have understanding about a potential treacherous path
that our country may be headed toward.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I wish to thank the Senator from Kansas. I
think he has articulated about as well as anybody the importance of
passing the legislation on the floor.
Many of my colleagues, I think, unlike the Senator from Kansas, in
some ways fail to recognize that when we put the sanctions in place
that brought them to the table, in the meanwhile they were going from
164 centrifuges back in 2003 to 19,000 centrifuges today. What Congress
did in a bipartisan way was put four tranches of sanctions in place to
begin putting pressure on them to stop and to get them to the table. We
have done that, but in each of those cases, we gave the President
unilaterally the ability to waive or suspend the sanctions ad
infinitum--forever.
It is something that my friend Senator Kaine from Virginia recognized
in our meetings as we had the Secretary come forward and talk to us
about the fact that, yes, you are going to have a vote on this. But we
all recognized that was 4 to 5 to 6 years down the road after the
sanctions regime had been totally alleviated.
I just want to thank the Senator for being so articulate in his
comments.
The fact is that without this legislation--without this legislation
passing--Congress will have zero. The President will go straight to the
U.N. Security Council with the suspensions in his hands that we have
already given them and implement whatever kind of deal he wants to
implement.
I have had a great conversation with my friend from Virginia today. I
think this bill obviously does give Congress, as the Senator from
Kansas mentioned, its rightful role. But I think it also gives the
President a backstop when he is negotiating so that people will
understand that we are going to play that role.
So I thank the Senator very, very much for his comments and for the
constructive way he is on so many of the big issues we deal with and
for his cosponsorship of this very important legislation.
With that, I yield the floor. I see my friend from Virginia.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. KAINE. Thank you, Mr. President.
I appreciate the comments of Chairman Corker, and I appreciate the
two punch lines of the Senator from Kansas to his argument that I am
strongly in support of. The first is that this is a very momentous
topic, and there are many, many questions about an ultimate deal that
we have to grapple with. Second, it is so much of the moment that the
congressional sanctions themselves are so wrapped up in the discussion
that Congress must have a role to fulfill our constitutional obligation
and to actually do what we essentially set in motion by passing the
congressional sanctions. We must have a role.
So to the chairman and to all who are supporting the bill, I think we
have got it in a good place on the floor, and I am proud to be a strong
supporter of it.
The only issue on which I would offer a slightly different take than
the Senator from Kansas is this. I think by all objective standards,
the negotiations to this point have produced a status quo that has been
better than where we were before the negotiations. If you think back to
before November 2013, Iran--although under punishing sanctions--was
moving forward in a very dramatic way to build up an architecture.
While the sanctions were hurting the Iranian economy, there was some
argument that it was not slowing down their nuclear program. It was
accelerating it because they were feeling isolated.
Prime Minister Netanyahu of Israel appeared before the United Nations
and gave a very famous speech in which he talked about the stockpile of
uranium that was enriched to a 20-percent level. We drew a bomb and
showed a level of enrichment that was getting to an extremely dangerous
place. That is where we were before President Obama started these
negotiations with the P5+1 in November 2013.
At the time the negotiations were started, there were some who said
they were misguided or a historic mistake or a giveaway. But, by now,
virtually all--even those who were skeptical at the beginning--would
acknowledge that the negotiations have actually led to a status quo
significantly better than before November 2013. The 20-percent enriched
uranium stockpile Iran had has been rolled back to a 5-percent
enrichment level. Many of the centrifuges and facilities where nuclear
weapons and nuclear activities were occurring have either been disabled
or in some way have been reconfigured so that they are not continuing
to produce more material that would cause significant concern. Since
November 2013 the international community has been able to achieve
significantly greater inspections of the Iranian nuclear activity than
they had before.
So while we still have significant questions about an ultimate deal
and Congress's role, we have a much better handle on their program.
They have rolled back that program to a significant degree, and even
skeptics of the original deal acknowledge that. I do think that is
important to mention.
Congress needs to fulfill its article I powers, but we also need to
have the President do the diplomacy that article II allows him to do.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to
2 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
[[Page S2427]]
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I want to thank Senator Kaine and Senator
Corker.
This is the second day that we have been debating the nuclear
oversight bill. Members have had a chance to express their concerns.
They have had a chance to put forward amendments, to file them at this
particular moment. We have been working with several Members to try to
see whether we can work out an orderly way for the consideration of
those amendments. I want all of the Members to know we are open for
business. Senator Corker has been meeting with Members, and I have been
talking to Members. We hope we can find a way to move this bill forward
tomorrow for the consideration of amendments.
I would urge Members--we are not encouraging amendments because we
think we took up these issues in the committee and we worked out a
bipartisan bill to get this done. But please talk to us so we can try
to work out in an orderly way the consideration of amendments starting
tomorrow and hopefully finish the bill shortly thereafter.
I yield the floor.
____________________